Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[Sum1sGruj]

What I mean is that your claim that the evidence doesn't support Evolution is a different issue from the lack of biblical support for literalism.

How about the lack of support for common descent? There's all the subjective evidence in the world that evolutionists claim, but what about that monumental key that is literally nowhere to be seen? It's easy to say 'well we see that organisms change'., but think about that- a microorganism is not only incredibly stubborn to transition to another species despite their relatively rapid changes, but to actually 'add' to itself and become a macroorgnanism is practically impossible. Evolutionists cannot even theorize on the matter, let alone reconcile it with any 'gears' of evolution.

That is a very damning aspect indeed, and it amazes me that people cling on to it so unequivocally, even to the point of warping the Bible. Anyone who has debated with me through this site has seen me consistently talk down evolution as a far-fetched theory, this is one of the reasons why. It doesn't make sense, and no matter how much anyone tries to compensate for what I just described, it STILL doesn't make sense., at all. The contrary is just a big mass of white noise, really.

The support for literalism is everywhere. It all just depends what kind of glasses you are wearing., what you are basing your conclusions from., where your starting point of logic is.

 

[Assyrian]

How about the lack of support for common descent? There's all the subjective evidence in the world that evolutionists claim, but what about that monumental key that is literally nowhere to be seen? It's easy to say 'well we see that organisms change'., but think about that- a microorganism is not only incredibly stubborn to transition to another species despite their relatively rapid changes, but to actually 'add' to itself and become a macroorgnanism is practically impossible. Evolutionists cannot even theorize on the matter, let alone reconcile it with any 'gears' of evolution.

That is a very damning aspect indeed, and it amazes me that people cling on to it so unequivocally, even to the point of warping the Bible. Anyone who has debated with me through this site has seen me consistently talk down evolution as a far-fetched theory, this is one of the reasons why. It doesn't make sense, and no matter how much anyone tries to compensate for what I just described, it STILL doesn't make sense., at all. The contrary is just a big mass of white noise, really.

So a handful of times in the precambrian you have had major shift as a unicellular lineage went multicellular and established itself in a world where there the playing field was open and free of competition, and you think because it doesn't keep happening all the time this disproves evolution? We ignore all the masses of evidence for evolution because of something you only think should keep happening but doesn't? It's not really damning at all, more grasping at straws.

In fact in the lab microorganisms have been seen to evolve from unicellular to multicellular when there was environmental pressure on the unicellular forms. It was found in algae, chlorella, in the presence of large numbers of predators. It was also seen in yeast when the experiment kept washing away most of the the free floating unicellular organisms. The new multicellular snowflake form reproduced by budding, and after a few hundred generations began evolve a simple division of labour and budding would occur by the yest cells attaching the section dying and weakenign the structure there letting the bud break free.

The support for literalism is everywhere. It all just depends what kind of glasses you are wearing., what you are basing your conclusions from., where your starting point of logic is.

Well I was a literalist wearing literalist glasses, but even reading the bible literally, I saw that the people in the bible loved metaphor and allegory a lot more than I did. They didn't always interpret older scriptures literally either, which was a real pain. So no. It doesn't depend on the glasses you wear. Even if you read scripture literally, it will teach you not to. As long as you are willing to learn.

 

[philadiddle]

From the Greek version it comes from Psalm 138 as

For thou, O Lord, hast possessed my reins; thou hast helped me from my mother's womb.​

And even if it were not rendered as such. For one, there is controversial data suggesting that form is "molded" as an extra portion of DNA. It could even go back further than that. Moreover, in the interest of proper science, fertilization and creation are both evidenced. In the interest of materialism however, they should be both materialistic.

It is the latter you are espousing here. It is not in the interest of data you bear discernment but in a belief, as you vaguely put it, in solely materialistic causes. Even if one were to relegate the data, and function solely on faith, where does materialism fit in with theistic faith? To function only on faith, then adopt materialism, is in fact materialism. You do know that right?

You don't understand my view at all, and I don't think you will try to understand it, so there isn't even much point in responding to this.

If I remember correctly you have said that you think that God works only in natural ways. What you are basically saying is that all supernatural phenomena and should be seen as a future materialistic process. That God is a metaphor for the natural world. Are you hearing yourself? Do you know which sect talks like that?

I never said that God only worked in natural ways, like I said, you aren't even trying to understand me, you are just trying to show me that I'm wrong, regardless of what I'm actually saying.

Nested hierarchy is not evidence for Darwinism. The nested hierarchy is only evident because the process has stopped. When it was in continuation and one group of organisms supposedly had eyes and the other did not, this would be seen as a nest. When the process continues and eyes are placed on those outside the nest with eyes, this broke the hierarchy. Then you say "no, no use something else." Only, you weren't there.

The nested hierarchy is evident, even in organisms such as moles and bats that don't use their eyes, yet they still have eye sockets because their ancestors had them. There are countless examples like this, but you don't actually care which makes me wonder why you responded to me. Was it just to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right? What are you hoping to achieve by discussing this with me?

Even something more obvious doesn't break the nest. Where one of the features of mammals would be listed as terrestrial and fish, aquatic, you have aquatic mammals (cetaceans). So how would the nested hierarchy deal with that? Mix and match- fish came on land, became mammals, then went back into the ocean and are now primarily aquatic. Simple. When you are able to do that, do you think that you can ever be able to refute a nested hierarchy of cars?

The nested hierarchy of cars is completely arbitrary. The nested hierarchy of living organisms actually looks at features, as well as genetics and the different lines of independent evidence continue to give us the same results.

Video 11 on this page (3rd video down) gives a very clear explanation of this.
BEYOND THE FIRMAMENT » Science and Christian Education Page 3

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So a handful of times in the precambrian you have had major shift as a unicellular lineage went multicellular and established itself in a world where there the playing field was open and free of competition, and you think because it doesn't keep happening all the time this disproves evolution? We ignore all the masses of evidence for evolution because of something you only think should keep happening but doesn't? It's not really damning at all, more grasping at straws.

It's very damning. All evolutionists have is a bunch of fossils. That is the conclusion. Adding information to DNA is a practical impossibility. No matter what happens, not even a whisper of additional information is added, just rearranged.
So how does a microorganism ever become as something as complex as us? It can't. That is the conclusion.
That should be proof enough right there. ToE has become some cult belief and that is precisely what keeps it going, not actual facts.

Well I was a literalist wearing literalist glasses, but even reading the bible literally, I saw that the people in the bible loved metaphor and allegory a lot more than I did. They didn't always interpret older scriptures literally either, which was a real pain. So no. It doesn't depend on the glasses you wear. Even if you read scripture literally, it will teach you not to. As long as you are willing to learn.

No, you just fell into the pit of common belief, that's all. Half the world thought the world was flat, and it made all the sense in every single way. In fact, you'd be considered a moron if you thought otherwise.
Creationists are saying the world is round. Pun intended.

 

[Assyrian]

It's very damning. All evolutionists have is a bunch of fossils.

I know, all we have is evidence, terrible isn't is? Oh and lets not forget as well as the fossils we have comparative anatomy... and genetics... and retroviral insertions... and pseudogenes... and fused chromosomes... and everything fitting so beautifully into twin nested hierarchies. Oh and a beautiful theory that works so well and explains all the evidence.

That is the conclusion. Adding information to DNA is a practical impossibility. No matter what happens, not even a whisper of additional information is added, just rearranged.

I have never yet come across a creationist who can say what they mean by information, because if you can't say what is and what isn't information, then you cannot say it hasn't increased. What we do know is how genomes change and new genes are formed.

So how does a microorganism ever become as something as complex as us? It can't. That is the conclusion.

No, more like personal incredulity.

That should be proof enough right there. ToE has become some cult belief and that is precisely what keeps it going, not actual facts.

Evidence isn't facts?

No, you just fell into the pit of common belief, that's all. Half the world thought the world was flat, and it made all the sense in every single way. In fact, you'd be considered a moron if you thought otherwise.
Creationists are saying the world is round. Pun intended.

I though flat earthers like the early church writers Cosmas Indocpleustes and Lactantius claimed the earth was flat because of their interpretation of scripture? Science had worked out the circumference of the earth centuries before that. Of course Cosmas came up with pseudo scientific arguments to support his interpretation of the world too.

Here then the Pagans are at war with divine Scripture; but, not content with this, they are at war also with common sense itself and the very laws of nature, declaring, as they do, that the earth is a central sphere, and that there are Antipodes, who must be standing head-downward and on whom the rain must fall up.
​

Thank God most of the church had the wisdom to go with what we know from science rather than Cosmas's Christian topography, it was bad enough when geocentrists opposed Copernicus and Galileo in the name of biblical literalism. No, literalists who think science has got it wrong have a very poor track record, we really shouldn't make the same mistakes again.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I know, all we have is evidence, terrible isn't is? Oh and lets not forget as well as the fossils we have comparative anatomy... and genetics... and retroviral insertions... and pseudogenes... and fused chromosomes... and everything fitting so beautifully into twin nested hierarchies. Oh and a beautiful theory that works so well and explains all the evidence.

It's all subjective evidence, therefore it can be situated and explained however evolutionists please.
I am glad you brought this up in light of what I posted earlier just so the irony of ToE can be revealed.

I have never yet come across a creationist who can say what they mean by information, because if you can't say what is and what isn't information, then you cannot say it hasn't increased. What we do know is how genomes change and new genes are formed.

Take a bunch of pictures and make a collage. Now, rearrange it. Then rearrange it again. And again. And again. And again.
This is what we see in organisms. We do not see additional information being added to what they already have. In fact, it goes against the fundamentals of physics, as something cannot be created out of thin air.

ToE dances around this issue altogether, staying in it's place as 'just explaining changes in organisms', but evolutionists still try to front an idea that common descent has even been remotely proven. It's not something to be taken lightly, as it is a complete disaster to theory. That is why it hurts my spirits as a fellow human being to see others obsess over it.

I though flat earthers like the early church writers Cosmas Indocpleustes and Lactantius claimed the earth was flat because of their interpretation of scripture? Science had worked out the circumference of the earth centuries before that. Of course Cosmas came up with pseudo scientific arguments to support his interpretation of the world too.

It doesn't really matter where it came from. The point is, everybody believed the world was flat because it was just plain common sense at the time. The world being flat did not include the entire Pentateuch, which many happily trample over wholly for no reason other then being scared of exaggerated theory.
The script has flipped in this modern era. What it comes to now is, are you going to believe a common belief like others did in those times, or are you going to open your eyes?

 

[mark kennedy]

I never said that Genesis was an analogy, I was talking about the analogy I used by saying that God knit you in your mother's womb.

I think that was the point, Genesis is an historical narrative. What figurative language is used in the Old Testament, even in Genesis, should not distract from the original intent and it was clearly an historical narrative.

Definitely not true. Read the works by the early church fathers.

I have and they did, now there is a danger of taking it too literal but the historical content has never been in dispute.

• But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
• MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
• IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
• EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
• Man too was CREATED WITHOUT CORRUPTION....But when it came about that he transgressed the commandment, he suffered a terrible and destructive fall and was reduced to a state of death. ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)

Early Church Fathers, Original Sin

The Genesis accounts are clearly considered historical and original sin being the primary focus. Like I have told you, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

I don't believe in our origins based on conjecture or speculation, not insulting your opponent and taking the time to understand them instead of ignoring years of conversations could go a long way for you.

Those are not my words, they are the words of Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.​

I concur. His words are consistent with the clear testimony of Scripture, teaching of the early church fathers and Protestant traditions prior ot the advent of Darwinism. I am ignoring nothing, I have studied the Scriptures and listened carefully to Theistic Evolutionists and see a stark contrast between them.

This is not an argument against my perspective, it's an argument against a strawman version of it that makes it seem evil.

Not evil, just erroneous, fallacious and in direct contradiction of the clear testimony of Scripture.

The repetition of your false dichotomy is disheartening. I've been trying to understand your point of view but you haven't taken any time to understand the TE point of view.

What's so hard about it? After the first verse of Genesis it's all regarded as poetic prose that disregards normative hermeneutic principles and essential doctrinal issues. The Theistic Evolutionist is simply an antithetical view opposed to creationism. I know the TE point of view, I just don't agree with it.

Yes the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time, that is a fact. It changes by point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplication, horizontal gene transfer etc...all of which are facts, all of which have been observed to cause beneficial mutations.

Mutations are copy errors and the have been observed to cause deleterious effects the vast majority of the time when strong enough for selection to act. The point was that it need not include the a priori assumption of universal common descent by elusively naturalistic means. By now you should know that the clear testimony of Scripture and naturalistic assumptions are the problems for the Creationist view.

Science uses methodological naturalism, which you seem to be confusing with philosophical materialism. Since this has been explained to you many time, I might have to start thinking that you are just ignoring people, which certainly makes sense of the attacks you seem to keep getting from other posters here.

I don't ignore them any more then you ignore the clear rules I have clearly outlined for epistemology of natural science:

The scientific method has four steps

According to Isaac Newton. Newton offers a methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature and reaching towards explanations for them.:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.​

(Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton)

Now compare that to Aristotle’s 4 causes:

1. A thing’s material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.)
2. A thing’s formal cause is its form, i.e. the arrangement of that matter.
3. A thing’s efficient or moving cause is “the primary source of the change or rest.” An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause. (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)
4. A thing’s final cause is its aim or purpose. That for which the sake of which a thing is what it is. (For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.)​

Aristotle’s 4 causes

That is sufficient to establish the epistemology behind modern scientific philosophy's approach to determining the cause and effect relationships of phenomenon. What this will not do is to exclude God as a primary first cause since both Newton and Aristotle knew this to be God. It is Darwinism that introduced the a priori assumption of universal common decent which led to naturalistic assumptions that exclude God before the evidence is ever considered.

I wasn't really asking about this specifically, I was asking about the snake bruising our heels and us bruising its head. What does that part mean to you?

You asked me what it meant, I answered your question. This passage is a Messianic prophecy but you probably don't see the point of Christian apologetics. This old debate tactic of repeating the question regardless of the answer has never been effective.

Similarities are evidence for it, differences are evidence of further separation. The nested hierarchy that we find in nature is evidence of it, and it would also predict that there would be more differences the further apart two species are on the tree of life.

Nested hierarchies simply sort according similarities and differences. The mechanism for the adaptive evolution that has come to be called positive/adaptive selection was the preservation of favored races according to Charles Darwin.

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. (Introduction to On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin)​

To this day evolutionists realize that the only alternative to the Darwinian Tree of Life is special creation.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step (Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution, by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma)​

Atheists often attack the bible as unreliable science. They quote that the earth sits on pillars and point out that an all knowing God wouldn't have written that. As a Christian I try to point out that the pillars of the earth are part of an ancient cosmology, and that it only serves as a backdrop for the more important truths in those passages. It was something the human author understood and used to relay the message given by God. Then the atheist just tells me that now I'm not reading what God wrote very plainly, and I'm just twisting it to fit modern cosmology.

Atheists categorically reject God as a cause for the Cosmos, creation and the Bible so of course they rationalize the testimony of Scripture away. They don't believe it, they don't have the foundational acceptance of God being the Creator, who cares what they think of the figurative language.

You are arguing like the atheist by only giving me the "literal" or "not at all" choices here. It boggles my mind that you could have chatted on here for thousands of posts and still not have a clue how TEs interpret the creation account. Which leads me to one last question for this post: What do you hope to get out of this conversation?

First of all, I know exactly how Theistic Evolutionists interpret the creation account and it dovetails seamlessly with Darwinism. I am establishing that God as Creator is essential Christian theism, and Genesis has always been understood as an historical narrative and always will be. As far as the 'view of TEs' you either believe it or you don't. Darwinism is an intellectually satisfying alternative for atheists and intellectual theists who agree with their naturalistic assumptions regarding origins. For the Bible believing Christian there is a point of departure, Genesis is not difficult to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

I'm curious about your take on Genesis as well. For example, in Genesis 3:15 when God is handing out punishments he tell the serpent that he will bruise our heals and we will bruise his head (the verb varies in different translations). What does that mean to you?

There is no 'seed of the woman', this is a predictive prophecy of the virgin birth. The euphemism used there is not unlike the one that speaks of the 'seed of Abraham', rather then seeds. I could elaborate but this is the first prophecy concerning Christ. You may or may not know, my original interest that led me into the origins debate was Apologetics and this line of interpretation is well established in Christian scholarship.

I wasn't really asking about this specifically, I was asking about the snake bruising our heels and us bruising its head. What does that part mean to you?

You asked me what it meant, I answered your question. This passage is a Messianic prophecy but you probably don't see the point of Christian apologetics. This old debate tactic of repeating the question regardless of the answer has never been effective.

Mark, I think that we could continue with these multiple discussions we are having but we both know that it's all been said before. The above quote I do want to talk about still. I wasn't repeating the question to make it sound as if it wasn't answered, it really seemed to me as though you didn't answer it. Here is the verse:

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

There are two separate yet related parts to this verse. The first is about the enmity between their seed, and the second is about the bruising of the head and heel. While your answer did address the first part it is the second part I was really trying to hone in on. Please share what you think it is about, I'm genuinely curious as to how you interpret this as a creationist.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I think that we could continue with these multiple discussions we are having but we both know that it's all been said before. The above quote I do want to talk about still. I wasn't repeating the question to make it sound as if it wasn't answered, it really seemed to me as though you didn't answer it. Here is the verse:

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

There are two separate yet related parts to this verse. The first is about the enmity between their seed, and the second is about the bruising of the head and heel. While your answer did address the first part it is the second part I was really trying to hone in on. Please share what you think it is about, I'm genuinely curious as to how you interpret this as a creationist.

Cheers,

Phil

I genuinely answered it Phil. However, if you would like for me to elaborate I'll be glad to.

The Gospel in Genesis is prophetic of the struggle between 'your seed' (children of perdition John 8:44) and the woman's which is Christ. The woman's offspring called 'he' is Christ and will one day defeat the serpent, identified as Satan (Rev. 12:9, Heb. 2:14,15, Rev. 20:10). The imagery of Satan being crushed is used in the New Testament to speak of the defeat of Satan in the same way (Rom. 16:20)

I interpret it as explained earlier and elaborated here. I'll give you a bit of free advice when dealing with figurative language. The interpretation can be found in the immediate context most of the time and the meaning will remain consistent throughout Scripture. Jesus once called himself the bread of life, that does not mean he thought himself a loaf of bread. That passage provided an interpretation for the figurative language in the immediate context as well.

 

[philadiddle]

I genuinely answered it Phil. However, if you would like for me to elaborate I'll be glad to.

No problem. I'm sure you felt you answered it and I didn't see it the same, it's just a different perspective. Thanks for elaborating.

The Gospel in Genesis is prophetic of the struggle between 'your seed' (children of perdition John 8:44) and the woman's which is Christ. The woman's offspring called 'he' is Christ and will one day defeat the serpent, identified as Satan (Rev. 12:9, Heb. 2:14,15, Rev. 20:10). The imagery of Satan being crushed is used in the New Testament to speak of the defeat of Satan in the same way (Rom. 16:20)

I interpret it as explained earlier and elaborated here. I'll give you a bit of free advice when dealing with figurative language. The interpretation can be found in the immediate context most of the time and the meaning will remain consistent throughout Scripture. Jesus once called himself the bread of life, that does not mean he thought himself a loaf of bread. That passage provided an interpretation for the figurative language in the immediate context as well.

I wouldn't have a problem agreeing with this, but there is one thing I am struggling with. When talking about the creation account you insisted that a literal reading is the only way to interpret it, and that analogy and figurative language was a secular compromise. Now, when asked to give meaning to part of it, all you do is talk about imagery and figurative language. What is it about the immediate context of this verse that makes it figurative while other verses in the same story are all strictly literal? What method of interpretation are you using to do accomplish what seems like a double standard?

 

[Assyrian]

It's all subjective evidence, therefore it can be situated and explained however evolutionists please.
I am glad you brought this up in light of what I posted earlier just so the irony of ToE can be revealed.

Wishful thinking there Gruj. Just because evolution explains everything, it doesn't mean it could explain anything. It couldn't explain organisms cobbled together from different parts by a designer instead of evolving from a common ancestor. But we haven't found any of those. The scientific theories that explain all the facts are the ones that are accurate, bad hypotheses don't fit the facts. That is how we tell them apart.

Take a bunch of pictures and make a collage. Now, rearrange it. Then rearrange it again. And again. And again. And again.
This is what we see in organisms. We do not see additional information being added to what they already have. In fact, it goes against the fundamentals of physics, as something cannot be created out of thin air.

You mean like a snowflake? If your collage has never existed before then it is new, and if you want to describe it, it is going to take information to say where all the rearranged parts fit and their relationship to each other.

You haven't really defined information. Your description of organisms simply being a rearranged collage says evolution doesn't add information, but it also says it doesn't need to. You could evolve crocodiles elephants mice hummingbirds apes and humans from Tiktaaliks without having to worry about adding 'information' at all because all you need to do is rearrange the DNA and select the different arrangements. Evolve.

ToE dances around this issue altogether, staying in it's place as 'just explaining changes in organisms', but evolutionists still try to front an idea that common descent has even been remotely proven. It's not something to be taken lightly, as it is a complete disaster to theory. That is why it hurts my spirits as a fellow human being to see others obsess over it.

Science isn't about proof, not in the sense of maths and philosophy. It is based on a theory that explains the evidence, where new evidence fits and confirms the theory too, that can predict what undiscovered evidence will show, which evolution has consistently done.

It doesn't really matter where it came from. The point is, everybody believed the world was flat because it was just plain common sense at the time. The world being flat did not include the entire Pentateuch, which many happily trample over wholly for no reason other then being scared of exaggerated theory.

The pentateuch teaches the world is round?

The script has flipped in this modern era. What it comes to now is, are you going to believe a common belief like others did in those times, or are you going to open your eyes?

It was science that showed us the world is a sphere and goes round the sun. The people who argued against the science the most were the religious people, because it contradicted their religious views. Not just Christians, the ancient Greek scientist Aristarchus was accused of impiety by pagan Greeks for daring to say the earth went round the sun, just as Galileo faced the inquisition a millennium later. This isn't something new in the modern era, science has been contradicting passionately held religious views for millennia.

It is not just opening your eyes. If you open your eyes you will see the sun going round the earth. You need to measure, calculate and produce theories that can be tested. You need to do science. It was science that told us the earth is a ball and science that told us it rotated and went round the sun. And all the religious people who threw up their hands in horror because it contradicted what they thought they thought must be true from their religion, got it completely wrong. The ones who got it right were the ones who went with science. After all God created the universe, and if what we learn abouts God's creation, if reality, contradicts our interpretations of scripture, then we need a better interpretation of scripture. And the Christians like Cosmas and Lactantius or Luther who called Copernicus a fool because their interpretation of scripture said so. They got it wrong. And even though they believed they were right, they believed they were standing for the truth of God's word and that God would vindicate them, God didn't. He is the one who created the universe science is telling us about.

 

[Willtor]

It's very damning. All evolutionists have is a bunch of fossils. That is the conclusion. Adding information to DNA is a practical impossibility. No matter what happens, not even a whisper of additional information is added, just rearranged.
So how does a microorganism ever become as something as complex as us? It can't. That is the conclusion.
That should be proof enough right there. ToE has become some cult belief and that is precisely what keeps it going, not actual facts.

I don't believe you've taken courses in signal processing or information theory, or ever studied these topics. But, in case I'm wrong, please elaborate on "adding information to DNA" and its applicability to evolution.

 

[theFijian]

Early Church Fathers, Original Sin

Just so you know Mark you've linked to a file on your local computer rather than a valid url.

 

[gluadys]

Some early Christians did and others didn't. There wasn't a single "early Christian" understanding of this issue.

That's for sure. That is why councils were held and creeds and canons adopted, to sort out which understandings could and should be at the core of the Church's teaching and stand as a criterion by which to ascertain sound teaching.

I consider it created as well. Created in a similar manner to the way we create our dream world when we go to sleep.

Could you elaborate on this? I can't see dreaming and creating as the same thing. I can see dreaming of something, developing a vision of something, as an initial step. That gives me a plan, a pattern, an idea to bring into existence. But until I take the additional step of making it, it has no actual existence. And when it is made, when it has been given existence, then it is not just a part of me, as a dream is, but has a being of its own. True, it embodies my dream, my vision, and so contains something of me, yet it is not merely me.

It's purely contingent and temporal.

I don't understand why these qualities would mean it has no real existence of its own for as long as it exists. Why connect these qualities with being a dream? When I make a cake for supper, it has a very limited span of existence, but it's existence is not something insubstantial imposed on reality by force of imagination. It is real so long as it exists.

Christ on the other hand is eternally begotten of the Father.

So then, what did Christ create? And for what did Christ die? Does one die for a purely contingent and temporal dream of one's own mind?

To me, the whole notion of the unreality of creation demeans both creation and Creator. What is the positive value you find in it?

Not every Christian in the catholic stream of Christian thought interprets it that way. Meister Eckhart comes to mind as one example.



I don't believe their is a single Jewish view either. The Kabbalistic view of creation is very similar to what I was just describing for example. Are they not Jews?

Well, it's not so much what the viewpoints of individuals are: all religions are quite flexible in incorporating various expressions of their teachings. It is more how far one can go down a particular path without placing oneself entirely outside of a core teaching. Go too far down the path of teaching the humanity of Christ and one ends up denying that he was anything more than human. Go too far down the path of teaching the divinity of Christ and one ends up with an Incarnation that was merely an illusion. One can easily find examples of Christian teachers who tread very close to these boundaries.

Obviously, especially in the Hellenistic-Roman period, Christian and Jewish teachers imbued with Greek philosophy, adopted and adapted each to the other. The question is how far can one go before one is teaching Gnosticism rather than Christianity. This, of course, was a crucial debate in the first three to four centuries of the Church. And it is a debate that continues to the present, especially as we learn more about Asian and other faiths.

Creation is certainly one of the core teachings of all the Abrahamic faiths. And to me, to depict creation as something dreamed, not made, as an emanation of God's being, not the act of God making a reality is uncomfortably far from that teaching.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That's for sure. That is why councils were held and creeds and canons adopted, to sort out which understandings could and should be at the core of the Church's teaching and stand as a criterion by which to ascertain sound teaching.

I don't believe majority rule is that useful when trying to separate truth from falsehood.

Could you elaborate on this? I can't see dreaming and creating as the same thing.

The mind creates the dream world. All the images, tactile sensations, sounds, etc. arise from it. Previously they were not there and then when the dream starts they all manifest. It is all made of consciousness. The chair in your dream is consciousness as chair (or maybe you could say consciousness chairing) for example.

That gives me a plan, a pattern, an idea to bring into existence. But until I take the additional step of making it, it has no actual existence.

Gods "dreaming" state may be more powerful and complex than ours. It may also be a more worthy creation. It is the dream of the infinite after all. Ours is merely a dream within a dream coming from a finite body-mind.

And when it is made, when it has been given existence, then it is not just a part of me, as a dream is, but has a being of its own

In this case you exit your sleeping dream state, create something using the "stuff" of this world, and then call it separate from you. Is it separate from God though? Couldn't the thing you create be composed of God- consciousness just as the chair in your dream is composed of consciousness?

To me, the whole notion of the unreality of creation demeans both creation and Creator. What is the positive value you find in it?

It exists as a misperception or illusion. I'm not saying there isn't a Reality behind the illusion.

As for it's positive value that's hard to answer. Some people call it the play or sport of God. Some like Plotinus teach that it is the Nature of God to overflow and manifest something "below" Him. Some say that God was divided for loves sake for the joy of reunion. Ultimately I'm here so I have to find a way with dealing with it even I don't yet know Gods reason. God can be hard to fathom sometimes.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

There was a thread clean up back on pages 4-6. It was a bit uncivil.​

 

[Jase]

From the Greek version one can get a clearer picture.

Ye have seen all that I have done to the Egyptians, and I took you up as upon eagles' wings, and I brought you near to myself.
​

Notice the use of the word "as"

And even if it were to be rendered as a metaphor, how does that validate Darwinian evolution? Creationism is in the literal and as an interpretation. It is given in the Old and in the New Testament. It is found in currently accumulating data and that of the past. The only space I see for Darwinism is as an acceptance based solely on materialism.

There is no "as" in Hebrew. It says "I am carrying you on wings of vultures" in Hebrew. The Torah was not written in Greek.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

The evidence is ample and obvious, the only thing that distinguishes a creationist from an evolutionist is a belief that God created by divine fiat rather then exclusively naturalistic means, as described in Genesis.
​

reply by sfs

That's not quite true -- nothing in theistic evolution requires that creation be by exclusively naturalistic means, just that it seems largely to have been by naturalistic means -- but it isn't too far from the truth. So you accept that the disagreement is about the mode of creation, not whether God is the creator. Great. But then you write this:

The only real statement I made I have repeated throughout the thread, 'to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel'.
​

But you've just written that creationists and evolutionists disagree about how God created, not whether he created. So literally no one in this discussion rejects Christ as creator -- but you keep treating us as if we did.

The point is that the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic. It portrays nature as self-sufficient. It attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone. And moreover,it locates the causes of origination of species in the wrong places - natural selection and genetic mutation - whereas in reality the natural means by which species are produced are acts of conception and reproduction,which are individual acts of creation by God through natural means. Species exist as individual creatures that have come into being immediately. But the theory of evolution ignores conception and reproduction and focuses upon non-creative processes. So the belief in the theory of evolution is,logically speaking,a way of denying God's creative activity,even if you say "and God did it". The theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything in nature. And it does not focus on the actual natural means through which God derives new species from prior ones.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

"Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution": 5 pages.
"Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism": 16 pages and counting.

Surprise surprise

The point is that the theory of evolution itself is naturalistic. It portrays nature as self-sufficient. It attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone ... The theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything in nature.

The fact that a process is self-sufficient doesn't mean there isn't something or someone guiding it. Here's an intentionally silly argument to show that being self-sustaining doesn't mean there wasn't a creator (or two)

Sperm belongs to my father, they contain his genes. Eggs belong to my mother, they contain her genes. When sperm met egg they stopped belonging to my mother and father and now belong to me. The fertillized eggs deceive their mothers into taking care of them, creates it's own placenta and signals to the mother when it's time to give birth. Therefore I created myself and my mother and father had nothing to do with my conception. Parents don't make their children.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The theory itself does not allow for God to be doing anything in nature. And it does not focus on the actual natural means through which God derives new species from prior ones.

I second that, and if all God did was set off a Big Bang (which has issues in itself as well such as the horizon problem), then it whispers Deism way too much for my interpretation of the Bible. It ignores the Pentateuch, it disputes the entire idea of sin, it makes 99.9% of everything God has done vain, it limits the almighty limitless God, and last but not least, it happily masquerades itself as 'explaining change' because the mechanism for common descent is non-existent. Says a lot about 'empirical evidence' that is really not empirical at all except to the people who want to believe it.

Sum it all up in a paragraph, and you can see the true gravity of what is at hand with theistic evolutionists who believe in the God of Abraham. They are walking on a tightrope, with a pit of blasphemy underneath. That is why I find it very important that people know the facts and not wishful thinking.

I think that if TE's really want to make a case and yet cannot get away from fossils and geography, then they need to just drop common descent altogether and start paying attention to what OEC's have to say.
Like Hugh Ross, for example. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I do respect that puts the Bible first, and not science.
He does not believe in evolution. Rather, he feels that as species died out, God simply kept making new ones in their place. And this continued for a long time. He can reconcile with the fact that common descent is missing a key element that likely is not even there.

I personally feel that TE's at their founding of the theology had simply just became so overwhelmed by what scientists proclaim, that they feel that it must be considered unequivocal.